discussed Cited "see" State v. Bush See People v. Jenkins , 22 Cal.4th 900 , 1039, 997 P.2d 1044 , 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 (2000) ("in ruling on [the] defendant's midtrial motion to represent himself, the court correctly noted that it had authority to deny the motion if self-representation required a continuance, and, in advising the defendant of the perils of self-representation, it asked [the] defendant whether he understood, among other things, that he would receive 'no extra time for preparation' "), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1155 , 121 S.Ct. 1104 , 148 L.Ed.2d 975 (2001) ; Commonwealth v. Brooks , supra, at 538, 545 , 104 A.3d 466 …

cited Cited "see" Hamwi v. State See Way v. State, 760 So.2d 903, 910 (Fla.2000), ce rt. denied, 531 U.S. 1155 , 121 S.Ct. 1104 , 148 L.Ed.2d 975 (2001).

discussed Cited "see" People v. Briscoe (See Schad v. Arizona (1991) 501 U.S. 624, 630-633 [ 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2496-2498 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 ] (plur. opn.); see also Richardson v. United States (1999) 526 U.S. 813, 817-818 [ 119 S.Ct. 1707, 1710 , 143 L.Ed.2d 985 ].) In Schad , the high court concluded that there was no general requirement that the jury agree on preliminary facts underlying a verdict. 12 (Schad v. Arizona, supra, 501 U.S. at pp. 631-632 [111 S.Ct. at pp. 2496-2497]; see People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1025 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 997 P.2d 1044 ], cert. den. 531 U.S. 1155 [ 121 S.Ct. 1104 , 148 L.Ed.2d 975 ].) Ho…